GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the afore-mentioned revision petitions have been filed against the judgment dated 4.6.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib dismissing the appeals filed by the present petitioners against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 11.03.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malout convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sec. 223 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.span 500 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Brief allegations are that on 08.07.2002 the police party headed by ASI Surinderpal, Incharge, Police Post Kabarwala alongwith Head Constable Balkaran Singh and other police officials was present at Bus Stand of village Pakki Tibbi. Petitioner-accused Gopal Singh Constable made a statement before the ASI that he was deployed as Police Constable in Police Lines, Ferozepur. On 07.07.2002 he along with petitioner-accused Des Raj and Constable Chanan Singh were deputed to produce under-trial Partap Singh on 08.07.2002 in case FIR No.93 dated 11.06.1999 under Sections 307, 506, 148 read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code and on 09.07.2002 in case FIR No.147 dated 29.09.1999 under Sec. 307 IPC, Police Station Sadar Abohar in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur from Central Jail, Ludhiana and that they received the custody of said under-trial from Central Jail, Ludhiana and produced him before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur and thereafter, he was to be detained in Police Station Sadar Ferozepur on transit remand. However, on the request of under-trial that he wanted to take some medicines, he was taken by them to his village Pakki Tibbi and after reaching his village, he escaped from their custody.

(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that they do not want to press both the afore-mentioned revision petitions so far as the judgment of conviction passed by learned trial Court and as affirmed by learned first Appellate Court is concerned. However, it has been stated that they want to press both the afore-mentioned revision petitions only on the question of sentence. It is further contended that there was no criminal intention on the part of petitioners-accused and they have been convicted by learned Courts below as they were found negligent in performance of their duties. It is further submitted that for that lapse, they have already been punished as they have been removed from their jobs by the department. It is further contended that they are first offenders and the offence is punishable with maximum two years' simple imprisonment or with fine or with both. It is further contended that they have already undergone four months of the sentence awarded. It is further contended that they are entitled to be released on probation as required under Sec. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.) and however, no reasons whatsoever have been given by learned Courts below refusing the benefit of probation to the petitioners.